ajb Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 And if I remember correctly, tracks have been found to, or at least reported. But evidence for the Mokele Mbembe is the hardest to get, I would imagine, because of the terrain and how secluded the jungle can be. But this isolation can help with this creature not going extinct and remaining hidden Various methods, including thermal imaging from aeroplanes have provided no evidence at all. Remarkably, the first legends of Mokele Mbembe as a dinosaur-like animal appear at about the same time as fossils of dinosaur were identified. I also wonder how much 'The Lost World' by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle helped fire the imagination. Moreover, for a while it was though that sauropods lived a semi-aquatic life and ate plants near rivers. This fits some of the descriptions of Mokele Mbembe habits. However, we know today that sauropods lived in seasonally dry areas and ate conifers. Mokele Mbembe does not fit what we know about sauropods. Other reports on its habits are that it eats elephants and crocodiles. Again, this just does not fit with what we know about sauropods. Also, there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that any sauropods anywhere outlived the other dinosaurs (except birds). Also, no bones or dead specimens have been found. Remember there needs to be enough for a breading colony; I am sure biologists can give an estimate on the numbers. Legends are legends, but no evidence at all has come to light of a dinosaurs living in Africa. It is a nice story and I wish it were true, but it seems very unlikely. Another one that just won't go away are megalodon. Similar to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's help in sparking interest in living dinosaurs, I wonder how much the movie 'Jaws' has helped keep this fish alive! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 @mootanman you have already listed a scource for one on Mokele mbembe, which shows plenty of sightings.i figured people would look at that. I'll go and collect some scourges, as I'm just not used to having them with me, as I prefer to memorize, and then speak.a tually, it could be possible that sauropods, at least a small population has survived. A population of Mammoths survived for thousands of years AFTER the extinction of these animals due to isolation.of all the cryptids, the Loch Ness momster is not one I think has survived. As I mentioned before, my book that I have convinced me of that. But who knows, maybe out in the ocean, there still are plesiosaurs. @ajb your coincidence about the Mokele Mbembe and identified fossils is not really something to be suspicious about, way before that, people thought fossils were supernatural items placed by the devil, from ancient Giants, etc. And plus, how would isolated natives know about those fossils. They know what's in the jungle. Same thing with "The Lost World". I don't think it really reached the natives. Btw, Mokele mbembe is said to eat hippos, and on some occasions, certain plants/fruits. Not elephants and crocodiles. And lots of sauropods ate ground vegetation, just to let you know. And who's to say these animals didn't evolve from being in the jungle. And they could very well be a different species not discovered. Paleontolgists haven't discovered even close to the estimated amout of dinosaurs that existed. And what's the likely hood of finding a small group of animals living past the others. Close to none. That's what's true about finding almost any new animals. The scientists that found the mammoths were extremely lucky. And when something's like a Mokele Mbembe dies, it would be a feast for all the animals in the congo. There are far more scavengers there than in North America for a Sasquatch carcass. And if it died in the water, the crocs would have blast. One tribe in the Congo was even said to kill a Mokele mbembe, but the meat was bad and caused food poisoning among those who ate it. As big as this creature is, it still could stay hidden in the Congo. It's so unexplored. The okapi was much the same way, until it eventually was found, in a small heard. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Astrophysicist Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) The laws of physics and reality puts a damper on these sort of things. While chances of this might be absolutely possible, though some say, no, many say that all of these are hoax, I am strongly against it. But it is up to others' belief, but it would be really cool if it were a reality. In any other case, further investigations and data must be achieved and carried out to determine such mysteries and possibilities. I did some mathematical calculations, such theories and cases of these come to 17.98256788999 chance in percentage of actually being true, or it not being a hoax. Continuing on these infinite possibilities of the "Lochness Monster", one theory suggested an illusion or some corrupt data or editing within the camera, but one interesting theory is our hallucination. Going on, this are all boring statements. We all have each our individual theory, and we cannot advance further with our technology, and to collect data would have further advancement in the further future, and to carry out investigations would be extremely difficult under normal circumstances. We'll have to wait and see. Cryptozoology; "The study of hidden animals"; Other life forms, and SETI, searching for them is very unlikely. Our signals to at least attempt to communicate with others is impossible, as signals are extremely weak, and their technology might just be worse than ours. But to communicate with such life forms may not end well for us, it is high chance, as they consider our hostility a threat, and so might we, resulting to a never ending war between planets, and its nations on earth and the other planet to try and resolve and work together to solve the issue. Cryptozoology, like big foot, lochness monster, etc. may not end well for us as well, but it is very unlikely for this things to happen to us. More mathematic calculations, I've calculated to a certain extent of which, it would at least take a few hundred years for a advanced enough technology to experiment, and find the hidden animals or other life forms. And their technology or its relevant theory of animals taking over our world as domination cannot be, as our world doesn't have that logic. We shouldn't sweat it, and our chances of coming across such life forms or cryptozoology creatures are around 0.0000000000000000567%/percent, a lot more to then your death about being struck by a lightning or being murdered by someone. You shouldn't worry about these. Worry about our current world issues and try to resolve them, our perhaps maintain stress about your death, and more. You should ask harder questions, dude. Edited February 21, 2015 by Jordyn Rahizel -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 Loch Ness is has a lot to do with hullucinating. First of all, special wave currents in the loch make waves and shapes that can look like the monster. Also lots of debris can too. There is not a lot of life in the loch, so no food supply, and there was even a search, there they lined the whole loch with boats and submarines and went to the other side in unison. No finds. The only thing that could go against this is the ness River that connects to the ocean from the loch, which the monster has been sighted in, but it's extremely shallow most of the time. As with the Mokele mbmbe, they preformed tests to stop fake stories, and proved that these people weren't making up stories to please these white men. They actually believed and saw something. And I could say 17% is quite a bit 17 out of 100 cryptids actually exist. But then again you can round that to 18 so 17-18 cryptids http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htm http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/01/confirmed-african-natives-kill-dinosaur-1693584.html http://www.icr.org/article/search-congo-dinosaur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Loch Ness is has a lot to do with hullucinating. First of all, special wave currents in the loch make waves and shapes that can look like the monster. Also lots of debris can too. There is not a lot of life in the loch, so no food supply, and there was even a search, there they lined the whole loch with boats and submarines and went to the other side in unison. No finds. The only thing that could go against this is the ness River that connects to the ocean from the loch, which the monster has been sighted in, but it's extremely shallow most of the time. As with the Mokele mbmbe, they preformed tests to stop fake stories, and proved that these people weren't making up stories to please these white men. They actually believed and saw something. And I could say 17% is quite a bit 17 out of 100 cryptids actually exist. But then again you can round that to 18 so 17-18 cryptids http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/mokele.htm http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/01/confirmed-african-natives-kill-dinosaur-1693584.html http://www.icr.org/article/search-congo-dinosaur/ As much fun as Mokele Mbembe is to say i think you are probably going to have to do better than the ICR for a citation. You are dealing with people who have an agenda and science has nothing to do with that agenda. I think you should stick to bigfoot, at least religion has no stake in proving bigfoot correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 They had lots of science on their page, and religion had nothing to do with the Mokele Mbembe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 @ajb your coincidence about the Mokele Mbembe and identified fossils is not really something to be suspicious about, way before that, people thought fossils were supernatural items placed by the devil, from ancient Giants, etc. Indeed, people did not know what they were. Today we have a much clearer picture. And plus, how would isolated natives know about those fossils. My claim is that it was Westerners that made the association between Mokele Mbembe and dinosaurs. And that is coincides with Westerns understanding what fossils actually are, including the realisation of large animals that are now extinct. They know what's in the jungle. Same thing with "The Lost World". I don't think it really reached the natives. Again, it was the Westerners' imagination that fuelled the myth not what the locals were saying about their legends. Btw, Mokele mbembe is said to eat hippos, and on some occasions, certain plants/fruits. Not elephants and crocodiles. I have read claims of eating hippos, elephants and crocodiles. In fact, if it were a predator I doubt it would be too fussy here and would take people when the chance presents itself. And lots of sauropods ate ground vegetation, just to let you know. This is just nit picking now to try to keep hold of your claims. Indeed some would have eaten vegetation near the ground. Anyway, we currently do not think that sauropods were semi-aquatic in quite the way that Mokele mbembe is claimed. Though sauropods are now though to be able to swim. And who's to say these animals didn't evolve from being in the jungle. And they could very well be a different species not discovered. Paleontolgists haven't discovered even close to the estimated amout of dinosaurs that existed. And what's the likely hood of finding a small group of animals living past the others. It does seem unlikely that just one species survived. And when something's like a Mokele Mbembe dies, it would be a feast for all the animals in the congo. There are far more scavengers there than in North America for a Sasquatch carcass. And if it died in the water, the crocs would have blast. Agreed, they would be rare. However, you are claiming non-existent. I don't know if one would expect the larger bones to survive. Well, some of them did during the age of the dinosaurs. One tribe in the Congo was even said to kill a Mokele mbembe, but the meat was bad and caused food poisoning among those who ate it. I to have read this. But this is not evidence as it is unreliable. The okapi was much the same way, until it eventually was found, in a small heard. True, but this animal does have close relatives that are still around today, the giraffe. The giraffids evolved something like 25 million years ago. The dinosaurs are though to have become extinct close to 66 million years ago. There is just nothing like a sauropod known to science alive today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 I have read claims of eating hippos, elephants and crocodiles. I've heard that too occasionally, with hippos the most common. But do they eat them, or just drive them out. I think the latter. Reports I have on my link says they are In fact, herbivores. if it were a predator I doubt it would be too fussy here and would take people when the chance presents itself. Maybe, even though I haven't heard reports of a human getting killed. This is just nit picking now to try to keep hold of your claims. I'm not nit picking. Im just giving small amounts of info to attempt to increase your knowledge. Indeed some would have eaten vegetation near the ground.Anyway, we currently do not think that sauropods were semi-aquatic in quite the way that Mokele mbembe is claimed. Though sauropods are now though to be able to swim. It does seem unlikely that just one species survived. And I think it's quite possible that not only one species survived. If you look at reports and other cryptids in the area, it sounds like it's not just one specieas. I to have read this. But this is not evidence as it is unreliable. It's on my links. DONT READ WHATS ABOVE AS ITS A MESS UP! "I have read claims of eating hippos, elephants and crocodiles." I've heard that too occasionally, with hippos the most common. But do they eat them, or just drive them out. I think the latter. Reports I have on my link says they are In fact, herbivores. "if it were a predator I doubt it would be too fussy here and would take people when the chance presents itself" . Maybe, even though I haven't heard reports of a human getting killed. "This is just nit picking now to try to keep hold of your claims. " I'm not nit picking. Im just giving small amounts of info to attempt to increase your knowledge. "It does seem unlikely that just one species survived. And I think it's quite possible that not only one species survived. " If you look at reports and other cryptids in the area, it sounds like it's not just one specieas. I to have read this. But this is not evidence as it is unreliable. It's on my links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 They had lots of science on their page, and religion had nothing to do with the Mokele Mbembe No, they had a lot of technobabble on their page that sounded sciency, you listed to a Religious fundamentalist website that uses things like Mokele Mbembe as support for Noah's Ark and other fundy silliness. Cryptozoology has many supporters among the Creationist ilk and they use the possibility of living dinosaurs as proof of the Earth being less than 10,000 years old. Sadly in this contest Mokele Mbembe has quite a bit to do with religion.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 22, 2015 Author Share Posted February 22, 2015 The article shown mentioned nothing of religion and were encounters of the Mokele mbembe. I suggest you read it and learn from it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 All these cryptids are supposed to be big animals and for them to still be around there needs to be a reasonable population. Large size and reasonable population size means they're going to be objectively recorded at some point.and yet since 1776 'Mokele' still hasn't been recorded for posterity. You can't realistically think that one or two Mokele specimens (if they were going extinct in1776) have lived for, and been elusive for, nigh on 250 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 What has been there to record it, except natives, who do it orally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 What has been there to record it, except natives, who do it orally? If they saw one that was then but there won't be any now ...like the Dodo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The article shown mentioned nothing of religion and were encounters of the Mokele mbembe. I suggest you read it and learn from it Subtitle article 1 - Cryptozoology - C vs E - Dinosaurs Thats creationism vs evolution btw. Subtitle article 3 - Evidence for Creation Unfortunately pseudoscience and misdirection is crucial for those peddling a creationist agenda. Some of the members here have spent decades fighting the rubbish that is published by those wishing to obscure the science( and promote a strictly religious explanation) and these members thus recognize even the faintest traces. It is very sad that well-funded and outwardly honourable institutions would push such a dishonest and misleading agenda. You will surely realise that this attack on science is two-fold; in the particular it tries to show that ancient animals survive and hints that this is because it has only been a few tens of thousands of years rather than the millions dictated by evolution; and in the general it is saying that mainstream science has huge holes in its knowledge that scientists are too arrogant to admit to. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 Well I don't mean for it to be used as evidence for creation, so I don't need people pointing that out, just because it's on a creationist website doesn't mean it can't be used for other things. So I say let's stick with what I mean it to be used for. @stringjunky but they still report them now, orally. They have new encounters I'm sure. But when was the last expedition? We have to go off slightly old info, which is still quite usable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Mokele was probably invented to stop kids wandering off too far and to teach them to be alert by instilling fear, a bit like the Hans and Gretel story. Edited February 23, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 just because it's on a creationist website doesn't mean it can't be used for other things. But it does bring its assumptions and suppositions into question. If they are not rigorous enough to reject creationism as anti-scientific, then expecting their other works to be solid scientific works isn't likely. Nevertheless, this comes down to exactly the same thing as the rest of this thread, solid scientific evidence. In the end, it doesn't matter if the solid scientific evidence comes from a creationist website, a flat-earther website, Nature.com, or my dog's website. What does matter is the evidence itself. And I'm sorry, but that webpage is just story telling, no actual science. I mean, my goodness, the author at the end even admits he didn't even know where he was! He may feel that he's "a hairsbreadth away from locating and filming a specimen of Mokele-mbembe", but that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee and that's it. It isn't evidence. Science has progressed past the dark ages of strong beliefs counting for anything. Actual evidence or get out. We're just pointing out that a site that is pushing a creationist agenda isn't going to be well known for being scientifically rigorous, and that that immediately brings any claims it brings into suspicion. To wit, even if they posted tonight supposed pictures or films of the creature, it would take quite a lot of analysis be verify that they aren't fakes. That website has shown it can't be trusted to perform science on the issue of creationism, it can't really be trusted to perform other high quality science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 23, 2015 Author Share Posted February 23, 2015 The same stories can be found all over the Internet, in books, etc. So I believe it's credible -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 The same stories can be found all over the Internet, in books, etc. So I believe it's credible The same stories about the earth being flat and the moon being made of green cheese and heat being a fluid called phlogiston and the French having discovered N-Rays used to be "all over" too. "All over" is a pretty low hurdle for believability. Ultimately, it is your choice, but if that is your bar to be hurdled, it ain't science. Not sure why you're on a science forum, then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't like the fascination for cryptids. I think it attempts to sensationalize biology, and gives the impression that normal creatures aren't fantastic enough. I watched a TV special recently on the coelacanth. They dove deep to find one, and there was so much fascinating information about them and the lobe-finned fish. But the show felt the same need to sensationalize, pretending one of the divers got caught in a line (it was a buoy line that was attached to him, I don't know what the big deal was), emphasizing the dangers of the bends, and in general trying to make a subject that was already scientifically exciting more exciting to people who aren't excited by science. I think the hunt for cryptids is counterproductive. I'd be very skeptical of any evidence gathered by an expedition funded specifically to find one. Wouldn't the best evidence come from a group that was looking for something else and stumbled on a find? Why do you think that's never happened? And I think this subject is for those who don't find mainstream science exciting enough. I don't know why some people are so fascinated by these claims. It's almost as if they want to scream and point fingers at the stupid biologists who got it wrong all this time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) I don't know why some people are so fascinated by these claims. It's almost as if they want to scream and point fingers at the stupid biologists who got it wrong all this time. I have an hypothesis that there is a post adolescent stage in the lifecycle of Homo-Sapiens. In some things it is difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy. Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I have an hypothesis that there is a post adolescent stage in the lifecycle of Homo-Sapiens. In some things it is difficult to distinguish fact from fantasy. And that, at least, is understandable. But some of the stances I've seen are fairly insulting (from my perspective) to biologists. Like despite everything they've done to advance science for the whole world, they missed this big frikkin' dinosaur colony, never found a shred of evidence it was there all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) And that, at least, is understandable. But some of the stances I've seen are fairly insulting (from my perspective) to biologists. Like despite everything they've done to advance science for the whole world, they missed this big frikkin' dinosaur colony, never found a shred of evidence it was there all along. Child to biologist father: "Dad,, DAAD!! There's a MONSTER under my BED!!!!" Biologist father: "Monsters aren't real. Now if you don't mind I have to finish my work on human DNA" Child: "You just DON'T CARE about MONSTERS!!! IF YOU DID YOU WOULD HELP THEM INSTEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!" Parenting should require a sound familiarity with applying Occams Razor to solving questions rationally. Edited February 24, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) And that, at least, is understandable. But some of the stances I've seen are fairly insulting (from my perspective) to biologists. Like despite everything they've done to advance science for the whole world, they missed this big frikkin' dinosaur colony, never found a shred of evidence it was there all along. And yet when some of them are shown the genuinely weird consequences of SR and GR I bet they go: "No... ridiculous!" Edited February 24, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't like the fascination for cryptids. I think it attempts to sensationalize biology, and gives the impression that normal creatures aren't fantastic enough. And it is believed there are plenty of species unknown to science. For example, it maybe the case that only half the species of spider are known. Plenty of scope I think for finding a new and fascinating species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now